On Liberty Now points out that Liberal Democrats are good at saying "No", but it is time for the public learnt what it is they say "Yes" to.
"Can someone please tell me, with links to evidence, how the NHS is being 'abolished' or 'destroyed'?" asks Mark Thompson. "I have seen many people claim this, often Labour activists but I have never seen proof of it, or even a convincing prima facie case."
"Political campaigns have always lied and stretched the truth, but when caught in a lie, would typically defend themselves (claim it was actually true), retract, or at the very least stop repeating the lie. Either way, the presumption was that truth-telling had some moral force; one ought to tell the truth, even if that commandment was often honored in the breach. What’s creepy about the Romney crew is that they don’t do any of those things. They don’t deny, they don’t stop, they just don’t care at all. What they’ve realized is that, given today’s hyper-polarization and fragmented media, there’s no practical risk to lying. It doesn’t hurt them, in terms of getting votes, so why shouldn’t they do it?" Writing on Grist, David Roberts notes the arrival of post-truth politics.
"Strauss leaves the team ironically in the same state of turmoil it was in when he accepted the captaincy," writes Leg Side Filth. That sounds a little harsh - it would make Andrew Strauss the David Steel of English cricket.
Spitalfields Life examines the centuries of graffiti at the Tower of London.
2 comments:
What a pity Strauss was not more like the David Steele of English cricket.
'No practical risk to lying' - the Liberal by election campaigning team worked that one out years ago. Ask Simon Hughes, amongst others...
Post a Comment